COSMETIC COMPOSITION FOR UV-PROTECTION THAT INCREASES UV PROTECTION EFFICIENCY BY MEANS OF UV LIGHT

Abstract

The present invention relates to a cosmetic composition for UV protection and, specifically, to a cosmetic composition for UV protection comprising: a sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure; and a specific weight of polar oil. The cosmetic composition for UV protection of the present invention significantly increases UV protection efficiency when exposed to UV light and has a remarkably excellent skin feel.

Claims

1-27. (canceled)

28. A cosmetic composition for UV protection, comprising a sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure and 5 wt % or less of polar oil based on the total weight of the composition.

29. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 28, wherein the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure is used in an amount of 2-30 wt % based on the total weight of the composition.

30. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 28, wherein which comprises the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure and polar oil at a weight ratio (sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure:polar oil) of 1:0.01-1.

31. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 28, which further comprises hydrocarbon oil.

32. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 31, wherein the hydrocarbon oil is used in an amount of 5-30 wt % based on the total weight of the composition.

33. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 28 wherein the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate and cinoxate.

34. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 28, wherein the polar oil comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of cetylethyl hexanoate, caprylic/capric glycerides, phenethyl benzoate, dicaprylyl carbonate, C12-C15 alkyl benzoates and octocrylene.

35. A cosmetic composition for UV protection, comprising a sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure and hydrocarbon oil.

36. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 35, wherein the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure is used in an amount of 2-30 wt % based on the total weight of the composition.

37. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 35, wherein the hydrocarbon oil is used in an amount of 5-30 wt % based on the total weight of the composition.

38. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 35, which comprises the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure and hydrocarbon oil at a weight ratio (sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure:hydrocarbon oil) of 1:0.2-15.

39. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 35, wherein the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate and cinoxate

40. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 35, wherein the hydrocarbon oil comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of liquid paraffin, light liquid isoparaffin, heavy liquid isoparaffin, Vaseline, n-paraffin, mineral oil, isoparaffin, isododecane, isohexadecane, polyisobutylene, hydrogenated polyisobutylene, polybutene, ozokerite, ceresin, microcrystalline wax, paraffin wax, polyethylene wax, polyethylene/polypropylene wax, squalane, squalene, pristane and polyisoprene.

41. A cosmetic composition for UV protection, comprising a sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure and polar oil, wherein the sunscreen is isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate.

42. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 41, wherein the content of the polar oil is equal to or smaller than the content of isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate.

43. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 41, which has an oil-in-water formulation.

44. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 41, wherein the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure is used in an amount of 2-30 wt % based on the total weight of the composition.

45. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 41, wherein the sunscreen having a methoxycinnamate structure further comprises ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, cinoxate or a mixture thereof.

46. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 41, which comprises isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate and polar oil at a weight ratio (isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate:polar oil) of 1:0.01-7.

47. The cosmetic composition for UV protection according to claim 41, which further comprises nonpolar oil.

Description

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0034] FIG. 1 shows the result of a boost in UV protection efficiency according to an embodiment (Example 8) of the present disclosure.

[0035] FIG. 2 shows the result of a change in absorbance according to an embodiment (Example 8) of the present disclosure, before and after UV irradiation.

[0036] FIG. 3 shows the result of a change in absorbance according to an embodiment (Example 13) of the present disclosure, before and after UV irradiation.

[0037] FIG. 4 shows the result of a change in absorbance according to Comparative Example 11, before and after UV irradiation.

BEST MODE

[0038] Hereinafter, the present disclosure will be explained in more detail with reference to exemplary embodiments. The present disclosure may, however, be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the exemplary embodiments set forth therein. The following Examples are provided so that the present disclosure will be understood more fully by those skilled in the art

Test Example 1: UV Protection Effect Before and After UV Irradiation

[0039] Each of the five types of typical sunscreens as shown in the following Table 1 was applied to a PMMA plate (HelioScreen Labs, HD6) at 1.3 mg/cm.sup.2, and in-vitro SPF thereof was measured by using SPF-290S (Optometrics Corporation) before and after irradiating UV light at 2MED (minimum erythema dose) through a UV irradiating system (Solar Simulator 16S, Solar light company). Herein, in-vitro SPF was measured at six different portions of the PMMA plate, and the average value was recorded. The results are shown in Table 1.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in UV filter irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) OMC 15.84 ± 1.05 23.27 ± 3.07 7.43 46.91 IMC 18.19 ± 1.12 26.33 ± 2.3  8.14 44.75 Ethylhexyl 10.11 ± 161  10.10 ± 1.66 −0.01 −0.10 salicylate Polysilicone 14.59 ± 0.41 14.65 ± 0.34 0.06 −5.16 15 Octocrylene 27.11 ± 6.79  25.71 ± 10.69 −1.40 −5.16 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate

[0040] It can be seen from the above results that OMC or IMC having a methoxycinnamate structure shows a boost in in-vitro SPF value, while the remaining sunscreens show no significant change.

Test Example 2: UV Protection Effect Depending on Content of OMC and IMC

[0041] The cosmetic products for UV protection were obtained according to the composition of the following Table 2. Part A and Part B were prepared individually and warmed to 75° C. While Part B was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 5 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C. Each of the resultant samples was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 3.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Comp. Ex. 1 Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Ex. 4 Ex. 5 Ex. 6 A 1 Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 2 Sodium 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 polyacrylate B 3 OMC 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 5 7.5 4 IMC 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 5 7.5 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Comp. 2.18 ± 0.32 1.75 ± 0.24 −0.43 −19.72 Ex. 1 Ex. 1  2.7 ± 0.31 3.09 ± 0.22 0.39 14.44 Ex. 2 3.93 ± 0.4  4.02 ± 0.53 0.09 2.29 Ex. 3 4.46 ± 0.72 5.88 ± 0.63 1.42 31.84 Ex. 4 6.31 ± 0.89 7.85 ± 0.89 1.54 24.41 Ex. 5 6.62 ± 1.64 11.68 ± 1.45  5.06 76.44 Ex. 6 7.66 ± 1.44 13.45 ± 1.44  5.79 75.59

Test Example 3: UV Protection Effect Depending on Content of Silicone Oil

[0042] The samples were prepared according to the composition of the following Table 4 in the same manner as described above. Each sample was determined in terms of in-vitro SPF before and after UV irradiation, and the in-vitro SPF values before and after UV irradiation were compared with each other. The results are shown in the following Table 5.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Ex. 4 Ex. 5 A Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 Magnesium sulfate 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DPG 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 B OMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 IMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 D5 0.0 5 10 15 BEMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Abil EM 180 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TiO.sub.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ZnO 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxy cinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/D5: Cyclopentasiloxane/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine/Abil EM 180: Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Comp. 28.74 ± 13.97 38.45 ± 23.03 9.71 33.79 Ex. 2 Comp. 30.77 ± 17.47 44.65 ± 27.46 13.88 45.11 Ex. 3 Comp. 30.68 ± 15.55 40.62 ± 23.05 9.94 32.40 Ex. 4 Comp. 37.67 ± 16.54 46.31 ± 24.51 8.64 22.94 Ex. 5

[0043] The test was carried out to determine the effect of the present disclosure depending on the content of silicone oil. As can be seen from the test results of Comparative Examples 2-5, when the content of silicone oil is increased, the effect of the present disclosure is maintained. However, since silicone oil shows poor compatibility with OMC and IMC, each sample shows slightly reduced stability.

Test Example 4: UV Protection Effect Depending on Content of Hydrocarbon Oil

[0044] The samples were prepared according to the composition of the following Table 6 in the same manner as described above. Each sample was determined in terms of in-vitro SPF before and after UV irradiation, and the in-vitro SPF values before and after UV irradiation were compared with each other. The results are shown in the following Table 7.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 6 Ex. 7 Ex. 8 Ex. 9 Ex. 10 Ex. 8 Ex. 11 Ex. 9 Ex. 12 A Purified to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 water Magnesium 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 sulfate DPG 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 B OMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 IMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Isododecane 1.0 4.0 7.0 10.0 13.0 Isohexadecane 4.0 10.0 Mineral oil 4.0 10.0 BEMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Abil EM 180 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Olivem 900 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TiO.sub.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ZnO 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine/Abil EM 180: Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone/Olivem 900: sorbitan olivate

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Comp. 43.39 ± 3.91 57.52 ± 5.82 14.13 32.57 Ex. 6 Comp. 36.69 ± 7.03 47.81 ± 7.57 11.12 30.31 Ex. 7 Ex. 8 44.16 ± 7.53 58.43 ± 9.29 14.27 32.31 Ex. 9 44.01 ± 7.35  56.9 ± 9.97 12.89 29.29 Ex. 10 42.27 ± 5.46 50.61 ± 8.09 8.34 19.73 Comp. 37.91 ± 7.18 46.66 ± 9.05 8.75 23.08 Ex. 8 Ex. 11 46.96 ± 9    56.4 ± 10.32 9.44 20.10 Comp. 28.86 ± 6.35 37.51 ± 8.94 8.65 29.97 Ex. 9 Ex. 12  27.7 ± 3.04 37.36 ± 7.44 9.66 34.87

[0045] The test was carried out to determine the effect of the present disclosure depending on the type and content of hydrocarbon oil. As can be seen from the test results of Comparative Examples 6-9 and Examples 9-12, the effect of increasing SPF according to the present disclosure is realized sufficiently regardless of the type and content of hydrocarbon oil. However, in the case of Comparative Examples 6-9 having a content of hydrocarbon oil of less than 5%, each sample shows an excessively stiff feeling of use and thus cannot satisfy the fundamental quality standard of cosmetic products. In the case of Examples 9-12 having a content of hydrocarbon oil of 5% or more, the effect of increasing SPF is realized sufficiently, and each sample shows excellent skin applicability.

[0046] FIG. 2 shows a change in absorbance in the UV region of Example 8 before and after UV irradiation. The data measured by using SPF-290S (Optometrics Corporation) are used as absorbance data to determine in-vitro SPF values. The absorbance of Example 8 before UV irradiation is represented by a solid line, while the absorbance of Example 8 after UV irradiation is represented by a dotted line. As shown in FIG. 2, Example 8 shows a boost in absorbance over the whole UV region after UV irradiation. Such a boost in SPF after UV irradiation is likely to be induced from a significant increase in absorbance in the UV-A (320-400 nm) and UV-B (280-320 nm) regions, particularly in the UV-B region.

Test Example 5: UV Protection Effect Depending on Content of Polar Oil

[0047] The samples were prepared according to the composition of the following Table 8 in the same manner as described above. Each sample was determined in terms of in-vitro SPF before and after UV irradiation, and the in-vitro SPF values before and after UV irradiation were compared with each other. The results are shown in the following Table 9.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 13 Ex. 10 Ex. 11 Ex. 14 Ex. 12 Ex. 13 A Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 Magnesium sulfate 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DPG 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 B OMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 IMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Cetylethyl hexanoate 4.0 10.0  13.0  — — — Caprylic/capric — — — 4.0 10.0  13.0  Glycerides BEMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Abil EM 180 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Olivem 900 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TiO.sub.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ZnO 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine/Abil EM 180: Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone/Olivem 900: Sorbitan olivate

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 13  25.5 ± 4.38 33.62 ± 7.93 8.12 31.84 Comp. 39.88 ± 8.01 39.98 ± 8.2  0.1 0.25 Ex. 10 Comp. 35.73 ± 3.25 35.62 ± 2.61 −0.11 −0.31 Ex. 11 Ex. 14 28.09 ± 4.85 36.99 ± 5.68 8.9 31.68 Comp. 42.59 ± 2.1  42.44 ± 2.1  −0.15 −0.35 Ex. 12 Comp. 40.99 ± 4.81 41.29 ± 4.4  0.3 0.73 Ex. 13

[0048] The test was carried out to determine the effect of the present disclosure depending on the type and content of polar oil. When the content of polar oil is 5% or less, the UV protection effect is increased significantly, as can be seen from the results of Examples 13 and 14. However, when the content of polar oil is larger than 5%, it is not possible to realize a boost in UV protection efficiency, as can be seen from the results of Comparative Examples 10-13.

[0049] FIG. 3 shows a graph illustrating the absorbance of Example 13 before and after UV irradiation. Referring to the graph of absorbance, it can be seen that UV protection efficiency is increased in the whole UV region.

[0050] FIG. 4 shows a graph illustrating the absorbance of Comparative Example 11 before and after UV irradiation. Referring to FIG. 4 showing a change in absorbance of Comparative Example 11, it can be seen that there is little change in absorbance, and Example 11 rather shows a slight decrease in absorbance in the UVB region.

Test Example 6: UV Protection Effect Depending on Type and Content of Polar Oil

[0051] The samples were prepared according to the composition of the following Table 10 in the same manner as described above. Each sample was determined in terms of in-vitro SPF before and after UV irradiation, and the in-vitro SPF values before and after UV irradiation were compared with each other. The results are shown in the following Table 11.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 15 Ex. 14 Ex. 16 Ex. 15 Ex. 17 Ex. 16 Ex. 18 Ex. 17 Ex. 19 Ex. 18 A Purified To To To To To To To To To To water 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Magnesium 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 sulfate DPG 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 B OMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 IMC 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Isododecane 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Caprylic/capric 3.0 9.0 — — — — — — — — glycerides Phenethyl — — 3.0 9.0 — — — — — — benzoate Dicaprylyl — — — — 3.0 9.0 — — — — carbonate C12-15 Alkyl — — — — — — 3.0 9.0 — — benzoate Octocrylene — — — — — — — — 3.0 9.0 BEMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Abil EM 180 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Olivem 900 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TiO.sub.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ZnO 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine/Abil EM 180: Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone/Olivem 900: Sorbitan olivate

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 15 24.54 ± 1.35 25.98 ± 1.52 1.44 5.87 Comp. 25.26 ± 2.76 24.87 ± 2.87 −0.39 −1.54 Ex. 14 Ex. 16 37.55 ± 2.85 40.89 ± 2.7  3.34 8.89 Comp. 26.38 ± 7.63 24.24 ± 1.76 −2.14 −8.11 Ex. 15 Ex. 17 28.31 ± 1.61 28.89 ± 1.74 0.58 2.05 Comp. 23.63 ± 1.96  23.5 ± 2.71 −0.13 −0.55 Ex. 16 Ex. 18 28.87 ± 1.79 29.24 ± 1.89 0.37 1.28 Comp. 24.77 ± 1.55 23.37 ± 0.94 −1.40 −5.65 Ex. 17 Ex. 19 25.33 ± 6.61 36.69 ± 5.54 11.36 44.85 Comp. 47.82 ± 5.46 46.86 ± 4.58 −0.96 −2.01 Ex. 18

[0052] The test was carried out to further determine the effect of the present disclosure depending on the type and content of polar oil. When the content of polar oil is 5% or less, the UV protection effect is increased significantly, as can be seen from the results of Examples 15-19. However, when the content of polar oil is larger than 5%, it is not possible to realize a boost in UV protection efficiency, as can be seen from the results of Comparative Examples 14-18.

Test Example 7: UV Protection Effect Depending on Type of Oil in O/W Formulation

[0053] The cosmetic products for UV protection were obtained according to the composition of the following Table 12 as follows. The ingredients of Part A were mixed thoroughly at 75° C. Ingredient 11 was introduced to Ingredient 10 and dispersed therein for 30 minutes by using Disper. The remaining ingredients of Part B were introduced thereto and the resultant mixture warmed to 75° C. While Part A was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 10 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Comp. Comp. Ex. 20 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex. 21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 A 1 OMC 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2 IMC 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3 BEMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 Hydrogenated lecithin 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 5 Cetylethyl hexanoate — 10.0  — — — — 6 Caprylic/capric glycerides — — 10.0  — — — 7 Isododecane — — — 10.0  — — 8 Dimethicone — — — — 10.0  — 9 Cyclopentasiloxane — — — — — 10.0  B 10 Water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 11 Sodium polyacrylate 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 12 Dexpanthenol 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 13 1,2-Hexanediol 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

[0054] Each sample was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 13.

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 20 14.46 ± 2.21  20.84 ± 3.53 6.38 44.12 Comp. 8.02 ± 1.43  7.15 ± 1.38 −0.87 −10.85 Ex. 19 Comp. 12.07 ± 2    11.07 ± 2.01 −1.00 −8.29 Ex. 20 Ex. 21 8.39 ± 0.11 14.83 ± 1.59 6.44 76.76 Ex. 22 18.1 ± 2.96 27.71 ± 4.85 9.61 53.09 Ex. 23 17.61 ± 1.91  22.58 ± 2.1  4.97 28.22

[0055] Example 20 including no oil or Examples 21-23 including nonpolar oil show a boost in in-vitro SPF value by UV light. However, Comparative Examples 19 and 20 including 10 wt % of polar oil shows a decrease in in-vitro SPF value by UV light. It can be seen from the above results that it is required to limit the content of polar oil, unlike nonpolar oil, so that the cosmetic composition for UV protection according to the present disclosure may realize an excellent UV protection effect.

Test Example 8: UV Protection Effect of OMC and IMC Depending on Oil in O/W Formulation

[0056] The cosmetic products for UV protection were prepared according to the compositions of the following Table 14 and Table 15 as follows. The ingredients of Part A were mixed thoroughly at 75° C. Ingredient 7 was introduced to Ingredient 6 and dispersed therein for 30 minutes by using Disper. The remaining ingredients of Part B were introduced thereto and the resultant mixture warmed to 75° C. While Part A was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 10 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C.

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 24 Ex. 21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 25 Ex. 26 Ex. 27 Ex. 28 Ex. 29 Ex. 30 A 1 OMC 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 Cetylethyl — 1.00 4.00 7.00 — — — — — — hexanoate 3 Cyclopenta- — — — — 1.00 4.00 7.00 — — — siloxane 4 dimethicone — — — — — — — 1.00 4.00 7.00 5 BEMT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 hydrogenated 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 lecithin B 7 Purified to to to to to to to to to to water 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 8 sodium 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 polyacrylate 9 1,2- 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Hexanediol * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/CEH: Cetylethyl hexanoate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Ex. 31 Ex. 32 Ex. 33 Ex. 34 Ex. 35 Ex. 36 Ex. 37 Ex. 38 Ex. 39 Ex. 40 A 1 IMC 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 Cetylethyl — 1.00 4.00 7.00 — — — — — — hexanoate 3 cyclopenta- — — — — 1.00 4.00 7.00 — — — siloxane 4 dimethicone — — — — — — — 1.00 4.00 7.00 5 BEMT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 hydrogenated 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 lecithin B 7 Purified to to to to to to to to to to water 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 8 sodium 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 polyacrylate 9 1,2- 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Hexanediol * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/CEH: Cetylethyl hexanoate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

[0057] Each sample was applied to a PMMA plate (HelioScreen Labs, HD6) at 1.3 mg/cm.sup.2, and in-vitro SPF thereof was measured before and after irradiating UV light with a wavelength of 321 nm at 2MED by using a laboratory UV irradiation system, bio-sun (Vilber Lourmat). The results are shown in the following Table 16 and Table 17. Herein, in-vitro SPF was calculated according to the following formula by using the absorbance measured through a spectrophotometer (Epoch). The absorbance was measured at nine different points on the PMMA plate, and the average of the SPF values calculated from the absorbance values was used.

[00001]$\mathrm{SPF}=\underset{290}{\overset{400}{.Math.}}{E}_{\lambda }{S}_{\lambda }/\underset{290}{\overset{400}{.Math.}}{E}_{\lambda }{S}_{\lambda }{T}_{\lambda }$

[0058] E: Erythemal action spectrum

[0059] S.sub.λ: Spectral irradiance (W/m.sup.2/nm)

[0060] T.sub.λ: Transmittance

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 24 6.08 ± 0.86  7.1 ± 1.17 1.02 16.78 Comp.  6.9 ± 1.03 6.34 ± 1.02 −0.56 −8.12 Ex. 21 Comp. 4.98 ± 0.26 4.22 ± 0.22 −0.76 −15.26 Ex. 22 Comp. 6.15 ± 0.83 5.2 ± 0.6 −0.95 −15.45 Ex. 23 Ex. 25 7.66 ± 0.84 7.86 ± 1.00 0.20 2.61 Ex. 26 8.06 ± 0.59 8.44 ± 0.6  0.38 4.71 Ex. 27 7.25 ± 0.59 7.62 ± 0.57 0.37 5.10 Ex. 28 6.76 ± 0.74 7.36 ± 0.93 0.60 8.88 Ex. 29 6.84 ± 0.78 7.33 ± 0.89 0.49 7.16 Ex. 30 4.73 ± 0.73 5.74 ± 0.93 1.01 21.35

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 31 22.09 ± 2.26 23.79 ± 2.57 1.70 7.70 Ex. 32 21.79 ± 0.96 24.95 ± 1.02 3.16 14.50 Ex. 33 11.12 ± 1.23 12.18 ± 1.41 1.06 9.53 Ex. 34  8.46 ± 1.88  8.12 ± 2.04 −0.34 −4.02 Ex. 35 22.29 ± 3.24 23.64 ± 3.25 1.35 6.06 Ex. 36 20.07 ± 2.18 21.35 ± 2.36 1.28 6.38 Ex. 37 21.38 ± 2.67 22.07 ± 2.53 0.69 3.23 Ex. 3 8 23.37 ± 1.89 26.49 ± 2.15 3.12 13.35 Ex. 39 22.05 ± 2.46 25.13 ± 2.74 3.08 13.97 Ex. 40 24.41 ± 2.91 27.47 ± 3.01 3.06 12.54

[0061] In the case of Comparative Examples 21-23 using OMC alone, SPF is decreased after UV irradiation, even when a small amount of polar oil is present, and thus it is not possible to realize the effect of the present disclosure. In the case of Examples 25-30 including nonpolar oil in addition to OMC, it can be seen that UV protection efficiency is increased. In the case of Examples 32-34 using IMC alone, the negative effect of polar oil is reduced significantly. In the case of Examples 35-40 including nonpolar oil in addition to IMC, it can be seen that UV protection efficiency is increased.

Test Example 9: UV Protection Effect Depending on IMC and Polar Oil in O/W Formulation

[0062] The cosmetic products for UV protection were prepared according to the compositions of the following Table 18 and Table 19 as follows. The ingredients of Part A were mixed thoroughly at 75° C. Ingredient 7 was introduced to Ingredient 6 and dispersed therein for 30 minutes by using Disper. Then, Ingredient 8 was introduced thereto and the resultant mixture warmed to 75° C. While Part A was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 10 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C.

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 18 Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 24 Ex. 25 Ex. 26 Ex. 27 Ex. 41 Ex. 28 Ex. 29 Ex. 30 A 1 OMC 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 IMC 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3 CEH 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00  5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00  4 BEMT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 Hydrogenated lecithin 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 B 6 Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 7 Sodium polyacrylate 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 8 1,2-Hexanediol 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/CEH: Cetylethyl hexanoate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 19 Comp. Comp. Comp. Ex. 42 Ex. 43 Ex. 31 Ex. 32 Ex. 44 Ex. 45 Ex. 46 Ex. 33 A 1 OMC 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 IMC 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 3 CEH 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00  5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00  4 BEMT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 Hydrogenated 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 lecithin B 6 Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 7 Sodium 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 polyacrylate 8 1.2-Hexanediol 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/CEH: Cetylethyl hexanoate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

[0063] Each sample was applied to a PMMA plate (HelioScreen Labs, HD6) at 1.3 mg/cm.sup.2, and in-vitro SPF thereof was measured before and after irradiating UV light at 2MED by using suntest XLS+ (solar simulator). The results are shown in the following Table 20. Herein, in-vitro SPF was calculated according to the following formula by using the absorbance measured through a spectrophotometer (Epoch). The absorbance was measured at nine different points on the PMMA plate, and the average of the SPF values calculated from the absorbance values was used.

[00002]$\mathrm{SPF}=\underset{290}{\overset{400}{.Math.}}{E}_{\lambda }{S}_{\lambda }/\underset{290}{\overset{400}{.Math.}}{E}_{\lambda }{S}_{\lambda }{T}_{\lambda }$

[0064] E: Erythemal action spectrum

[0065] S.sub.λ: Spectral irradiance (W/m.sup.2/nm)

[0066] T.sub.λ: Transmittance

TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 20 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Comp. 4 67 ± 0.44  4.33 ± 0.49 −0.34 −7.27 Ex. 24 Comp. 4.91 ± 0.53  4.7 ± 0.35 −0.22 −4.42 Ex. 25 Comp. 5.87 ± 1.09  5.04 ± 0.94 −0.82 −14.06 Ex. 26 Comp. 6.15 ± 0.45  5.37 ± 0.76 −0.79 −12.79 Ex. 27 Ex. 41 6.37 ± 0.68 10.13 ± 1.8  3.76 58.99 Comp. 6.18 ± 0.53  6.31 ± 0.69 0.13 2.15 Ex. 28 Comp. 9.11 ± 2.59  8.25 ± 2.42 −0.86 −9.42 Ex. 29 Comp. 8.06 ± 1.88  6.39 ± 1.58 −1.67 −20.73 Ex. 30 Ex. 42 12.04 ± 1.76  21.34 ± 2.33 9.3 77.24 Ex. 43 11.02 ± 1.63  14.97 ± 2.99 3.95 35.83 Comp. 9.24 ± 2.25 8.66 ± 1.6 −0.58 −6.24 Ex. 31 Comp. 20.41 ± 4.59  18.76 ± 3.98 −1.65 −8.07 Ex. 32 Ex. 44 18.28 ± 1.4  25.26 ± 1.48 6.98 38.17 Ex. 45 26.04 ± 3.7   29.1 ± 3.51 3.05 11.73 Ex. 46 11.54 ± 2.07  14.75 ± 3.29 3.22 27.89 Comp. 19.28 ± 2.53  19.67 ± 3.11 0.4 2.05 Ex. 33

[0067] When the content of polar oil is equal to or small than the content of IMC, like Examples 41-46, in-vitro SPF values are increased by UV light. On the contrary, when the content of polar oil is larger than the content of IMC, like Comparative Examples 24-33, in-vitro SPF values are reduced or show a significantly reduced change. Therefore, it can be seen that the content of polar oil should be equal to or smaller than the content of a sunscreen, particularly IMC, so that the cosmetic composition for UV protection according to the present disclosure may realize an excellent UV protection effect.

Test Example 10: UV Protection Effect Depending on Content of Nonpolar Oil

[0068] The cosmetic products for UV protection were obtained according to the composition of the following Table 21. Part A and Part B were prepared individually and warmed to 75° C. While Part B was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 5 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C. Each of the resultant samples was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 22.

TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 21 Ex. 47 Ex. 48 Ex. 49 Ex. 50 A 1 OMC 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2 IMC 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3 BEMT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4 hydrogenated lecithin 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 5 dimethicone 5.00 10.00  15.00  20.00  B 6 Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 7 sodium polyacrylate 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 8 1,2-Hexanediol 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/CEH: Cetylethyl hexanoate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 22 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 47 21.39 ± 1.53 24.05 ± 2.65 2.66 12.44 Ex. 48  18.1 ± 2.96 27.71 ± 4.85 9.61 53.09 Ex. 49 20.31 ± 2.34 28.94 ± 3.33 8.63 42.49 Ex. 50 18.12 ± 2.64 29.24 ± 4.71 11.12 61.37

[0069] It can be seen that even when nonpolar oil is used up to 20%, like Examples 40-50, UV protection efficiency is increased by UV light.

Test Example 11: UV Protection Effect Depending on Content of OMC and IMC

[0070] The cosmetic products for UV protection were obtained according to the composition of the following Table 23. Part A and Part B were prepared individually and warmed to 75° C. While Part B was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 5 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C. Each of the resultant samples was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 24.

TABLE-US-00023 TABLE 23 Comp. Comp. Ex. 51 Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 34 Ex. 35 A 1 OMC 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2 IMC 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3 BEMT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4 hydrogenated lecithin 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 5 dimethicone 10.00  7.50 5.00 2.50 — 6 caprylic/Capric Glycerides — 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00  B 7 Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 8 sodium polyacrylate 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 9 1,2-Hexanediol 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/CEH: Cetylethyl hexanoate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 24 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 51 18.1 ± 2.96 27.71 ± 4.85  9.61 53.09 Ex. 52  7.6 ± 1.26 1.26 ± 9.75 2.15 28.29 Ex. 53 7.11 ± 0.9   0.9 ± 8.28 1.17 16.46 Comp. 4.84 ± 0.37 0.37 ± 4.55 (0.29) −5.99 Ex. 34 Comp. 12.07 ± 2    11.07 ± 2.01  −1.00 −8.29 Ex. 35

[0071] It can be seen that when the content of polar oil is smaller than the content of IMC, like Examples 51-53, the effect of the present disclosure is maintained. On the contrary, it can be seen that when the content of polar oil is larger than the content of IMC, like Comparative Examples 34 and 35, it is not possible to realize the effect of the present disclosure.

Test Example 12: UV Protection Effect Depending on Emulsifier

[0072] The cosmetic products for UV protection were obtained according to the composition of the following Table 25 and Table 26. Part A and Part B were prepared individually and warmed to 75° C. While Part B was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 5 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C. Each of the resultant samples was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 27.

TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 25 A 1 OMC 7.00 2 IMC 9.00 3 BEMT 2.00 4 MT-100TV 2.00 5 Emulsifier 3.00 B 6 Purified water to 100 7 1,2-Hexanediol 2.00

TABLE-US-00026 TABLE 26 Emulsifier Content Ex. 54 Lipomulse 165 3 Ex. 55 Olivem 800 3 Ex. 56 Olivem 1000 3 Ex. 57 Montanov L 3 Ex. 58 Montanov 68 3 Ex. 59 Lipoid S 75-3 3 Ex. 60 Tegocare 450 3 Ex. 61 Span 60 3 Ex. 62 Tween 20 3 Ex. 63 Amphisol K 3

TABLE-US-00027 TABLE 27 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 54  45.56 ± 12.36  50.12 ± 11.04 4.56 10.01 Ex. 55 40.72 ± 8.03  44.4 ± 7.84 3.68 9.04 Ex. 56 49.73 ± 9.95 55.05 ± 9.65 5.32 10.70 Ex. 57 46.24 ± 9.79 49.22 ± 9.09 2.98 6.44 Ex. 58 48.17 ± 9.6  52.67 ± 9.57 4.50 9.34 Ex. 59 51.21 ± 8.67  58.04 ± 10.14 6.83 13.34 Ex. 60 35.16 ± 7.48 46.72 ± 8.48 11.56 32.88 Ex. 61 40.93 ± 7.62 48.73 ± 7.86 7.80 19.06 Ex. 62 34.13 ± 7.53 34.95 ± 8.39 0.82 2.40 Ex. 63 24.78 ± 4.88 26.47 ± 4.99 1.69 6.82

[0073] It can be seen that even when an emulsifier suitable for an oil-in-water formulation is present, the effect of the present disclosure is maintained.

Test Example 13: UV Protection Effect Depending on Polymer

[0074] The cosmetic products for UV protection were obtained according to the composition of the following Table 28 and Table 29. Part A and Part B were prepared individually and warmed to 75° C. While Part B was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 5 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C. Each of the resultant samples was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 30.

TABLE-US-00028 TABLE 28 Examples 64-68 Examples 69-71 A 1 OMC 7.00 7.00 2 IMC 9.00 9.00 3 BEMT 2.00 2.00 4 MT-100TV 2.00 2.00 5 Lipoid S 75-3 3.00 3.00 B 6 Purified water 79.70 79.75 7 1,2-Hexanediol 2.00 2.00 8 polymer 0.30 0.15 9 tris amino ultra pc 0.00 0.10

TABLE-US-00029 TABLE 29 Polymer Content Ex. 64 comedia SP 0.3 Ex. 65 Aristoflex AVC 0.3 Ex. 66 volarest 0.3 Ex. 67 sepimax gen 0.3 Ex. 68 Keltrol F 0.3 Ex. 69 pemulene TR2 0.15 Ex. 70 C 980 0.15 Ex. 71 Utrez-21 0.15

TABLE-US-00030 TABLE 30 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 64 44.81 ± 8.19  48.47 ± 10.33 3.66 8.17 Ex. 65  43.9 ± 6.07 47.49 ± 5.34 3.59 8.18 Ex. 66 39.13 ± 6.39 42.76 ± 7.63 3.63 9.28 Ex. 67 33.09 ± 1.75 36.86 ± 2.27 3.77 11.39 Ex. 68  31.5 ± 3.64 33.9 ± 5.3 2.68 9.30 Ex. 69 28.81 ± 2.21 31.49 ± 2.77 2.40 7.62 Ex. 70 44.13 ± 6.45 48.53 ± 9.22 4.40 9.97 Ex. 71 41.85 ± 4.91 44.71 ± 5.68 2.86 6.83

[0075] It can be seen that even when a thickener used for an oil-in-water formulation is present, the effect of the present disclosure is maintained.

Test Example 14: UV Protection Effect Depending on Type of Emulsifier in O/W Formulation

[0076] The cosmetic products for UV protection were prepared by using various types of emulsifiers as shown in the following Table 32 according to the composition of the following Table 31 as follows. The ingredients of Part A were mixed thoroughly at 75° C. Ingredient 7 and Ingredient 8 were introduced to Ingredient 6 and dispersed therein for 30 minutes by using Disper. The remaining ingredients of Part B were introduced thereto and the resultant mixture warmed to 75° C. While Part A was introduced gradually to Part B, emulsification was carried out for 10 minutes by using a homo-mixer, followed by cooling to 30° C. Each of the resultant samples was determined in terms of SPF value before and after UV irradiation in the same manner as Test Example 1. The results are shown in the following Table 33.

TABLE-US-00031 TABLE 31 A 1 OMC 7.00 2 IMC 9.00 3 BEMT 2.00 4 MT-100TV 2.00 5 Emulsifier 3.00 B 6 Purified water to 100 7 Sodium polyacrylate 0.50 8 Xanthan gum 0.10 9 Tinosorb S lite aqua 5.00 10 Panthenol 1.00 11 EDTA 3NA 0.02 12 1,2-Hexanediol 2.00 * OMC: Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate/IMC: Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate/BEMT: Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine

TABLE-US-00032 TABLE 32 Emulsifier Ex. 72 Sodium polyacrylate Ex. 73 Cetearyl olivate, Sorbitan olivate Ex. 74 C14-22 alcohols, C12-20 alkyl glucoside Ex. 75 Hydrogenated lecithin Ex. 76 Ceteareth-6 olivate Ex. 77 Polyglyceryl-3 methyl glucose distearate Ex. 78 Polysorbate 20 Comp. Ex. 36 Polysorbate 60 Ex. 79 Potassium cetyl phosphate

TABLE-US-00033 TABLE 33 SPF (before UV SPF (after UV Change in Change in irradiation) irradiation) SPF value SPF (%) Ex. 72 37.57 ± 4.89 44.19 ± 5.41 6.62 17.62 Ex. 73 52.29 ± 4.53 59.85 ± 5.18 7.56 14.46 Ex. 74 52.47 ± 3.36 57.86 ± 7.61 5.39 10.27 Ex. 75  42.5 ± 4.12 56.84 ± 4.74 14.34 33.74 Ex. 76 52.73 ± 3.79 53.65 ± 3.73 0.92 1.74 Ex. 77 43.27 ± 4.92 44 01 ± 4.75 0.74 1.71 Ex. 78 51.09 ± 5.41 53,64 ± 7.44 2.55 4.99 Comp. 44.36 ± 7.54 39.45 ± 8.43 −4.91 −11.07 Ex. 36 Ex. 79 51.96 ± 4.37   53 ± 4.57 1.04 2.00

[0077] While the emulsifiers used in Examples 72-79 increase UV protection effect significantly, the emulsifier used in Comparative Example 36 cannot increase UV protection effect.